Hi Simon, On Thu, 2025-02-13 at 07:01 -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Yannic, > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 00:15, Yannic Moog <y.m...@phytec.de> wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > On Mon, 2025-02-10 at 06:06 -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Yannic, > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 at 03:30, Yannic Moog <y.m...@phytec.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > The top level Makefile calls binman with fake-ext-blobs. > > > > The test setup should reflect this to spot potential bugs before > > > > reaching users. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yannic Moog <y.m...@phytec.de> > > > > --- > > > > tools/binman/ftest.py | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/binman/ftest.py b/tools/binman/ftest.py > > > > index a553ca9e564..1f194f9ecae 100644 > > > > --- a/tools/binman/ftest.py > > > > +++ b/tools/binman/ftest.py > > > > @@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ class TestFunctional(unittest.TestCase): > > > > def _DoTestFile(self, fname, debug=False, map=False, > > > > update_dtb=False, > > > > entry_args=None, images=None, use_real_dtb=False, > > > > use_expanded=False, verbosity=None, > > > > allow_missing=False, > > > > - allow_fake_blobs=False, extra_indirs=None, > > > > threads=None, > > > > + allow_fake_blobs=True, extra_indirs=None, > > > > threads=None, > > > > test_section_timeout=False, update_fdt_in_elf=None, > > > > force_missing_bintools='', ignore_missing=False, > > > > output_dir=None): > > > > """Run binman with a given test file > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 2.43.0 > > > > > > > > > > I would like this default to stay the same (False) because that is the > > > normal case for Binman. We should expand the test-coverage as needed. > > > > Can you help me understand why we fake blobs in the call to binman when > > building U-Boot? > > You say that not faking is the normal case so why are we doing something > > abnormal in the top- > > level > > Makefile? > > I mean that not faking is the normal case for Binman's code base. Yes, > U-Boot requests faking. > > > > > I think that this inconsistency is a potential for bugs going unnoticed so > > whatever we decide to > > do > > I would very much like to be consistent with testing and "normal" builds. > > Binman is tested by its own tests which handle both cases, so we don't > have a test gap there.
Sorry, I am still stumped here. I feel like my question as to why U-Boot requests faking has not been answered above. Can you please explain that again? And I am left a bit confused since I thought these RFC patches show that there indeed was a test gap (in a single test case testFitFirmwareLoadables only, but still) due to not faking external blobs. Is it not possible that there are other potential problems in regards to faking blobs that we have not discovered, yet? Yannic > > Regards, > Simon > > > > > Yannic > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Simon > >
